[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 26 (Friday, February 12, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1644-S1649]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
S. 426. A bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, to
provide for a land exchange between the Secretary of Agriculture and
the Huna Totem Corporation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Kake Tribal Corporation Public Interest Land Exchange Act
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce two similar
bills both of which passed the Senate last year with unanimous consent.
One of these bills amends the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA), to provide for a land exchange between the Secretary of
Agriculture and the Huna Totem Corporation, a village corporation
created under that Act. The other bill provides for a similar land
exchange between the Secretary and the Kake Tribal Corporation. Both of
these bills will allow the Kake Tribal and Huna Totem Corporations to
convey land needed as municipal watersheds in their surrounding
communities to the Secretary in exchange for other Forest Service
lands.
Enactment of these bills will meet two objectives. First, the two
corporations will finally be able to fully recognize the economic
benefits promised to them under ANCSA. Second, the watersheds that
supply the communities of Hoonah, Alaska and Kake, Alaska will be
protected in order to provide safe water for those communities.
The legislation I offer today clarifies several issues that were
raised during the Committee hearings and mark-up last year. First, the
legislation directs that the subsurface estates owned by Sealaska
Corporation in the Huna and Kake exchange lands are exchanged for
similar subsurface estates in the conveyed Forest Service lands. Second
the substitute clarifies that these exchanges are to be done on an
equal value basis. Both the Secretary of Agriculture and the
corporations insisted on this provision. I believe this is critical,
Mr. President, because both these bills provide that any timber derived
from the newly acquired Corporation lands be processed in-state, a
requirement that does not currently exist on the watershed lands the
corporations are exchanging. Therefore, if this exchange simply were
done on an acre-for-acre basis it is likely that the acreage the
corporations are exchanging, without any timber export restrictions,
would have a much higher value than what they would get in return. It
is for this reason that these exchanges will not be done on an acre-
for-acre basis. If it ends up that either party has to receive
additional compensation, either in additional lands or in cash to
equalize the value, then it is my hope this will be done in an
expeditious way to allow the exchange to move forward within the times
specified in the legislation.
I believe these two pieces of legislation are in the best interest of
the native corporations, the Alaska communities where the watersheds
are located, and the Federal government. It is my intention to try and
pass these bills out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 426
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Kake Tribal Corporation
Public Interest Land Exchange Act.''
SEC. 2 AMENDMENT OF SETTLEMENT ACT.
The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (Public Law 92-203,
December 18, 1971, 85 Stat. 688, 43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), as
amended, is further amended by adding at the end thereof:
``SEC. . KAKE TRIBAL CORPORATION LAND EXCHANGE.
``(a) General.--In exchange for lands and interests therein
described in subsection (b), the Secretary of Agriculture
shall, subject to valid existing rights convey to the Kake
Tribal Corporation the surface estate and to Sealaska
Corporation the subsurface estate of the Federal land
identified by Kake Tribal Corporation pursuant to subsection
(c): Lands exchanged pursuant to this section shall be on the
basis of equal value.
``(b) The surface estate to be conveyed by Kake Tribal
Corporation and the subsurface estate to be conveyed by
Sealaska Corporation to the Secretary of Agriculture are the
municipal watershed lands as shown on the map dated September
1, 1997, and labeled Attachment A, and are further described
as follows:
MUNICIPAL WATERSHED, COPPER RIVER MERIDIAN, T56S, R72E
Approx-
Section imate
acres
13........................................................... 82
23........................................................... 118
24........................................................... 635
25........................................................... 640
26........................................................... 346
34........................................................... 9
35........................................................... 349
36........................................................... 248
----------
Approximate total.......................................... 2,427
``(c) Within ninety (90) days of the receipt by the United
States of the conveyances of the surface estate and the
subsurface estate described in subsection (b), Kake Tribal
Corporation shall be entitled to identify lands in the
Hamilton Bay and Saginaw Bay areas, as depicted on the maps
dated September 1, 1997, and labeled Attachments B and C.
Kake Tribal Corporation shall notify the Secretary of
Agriculture in writing which lands Kake Tribal Corporation
has identified.
``(d) Timing of Conveyance and Valuation.--The conveyance
mandated by subsection (a) by the Secretary of Agriculture
shall occur within ninety (90) days after the list of
identified lands is submitted by Kake Tribal Corporation
pursuant to subsection (c).
``(e) Management of Watershed.--The Secretary of
Agriculture shall enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with
the City of
[[Page S1645]]
Kake, Alaska, to provide for management of the municipal
watershed.
``(f) Timber Manufacturing; Export Restriction.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, timber harvested
from land conveyed to Kake Tribal Corporation under this
section shall not be exported as unprocessed logs from
Alaska, nor may Kake Tribal Corporation sell, trade,
exchange, substitute, or otherwise convey that timber to any
person for the purpose of exporting that timber from the
State of Alaska.
``(g) Relation to Other Requirements.--The land conveyed to
Kake Tribal Corporation and Sealaska Corporation under this
section shall be considered, for all purposes, land conveyed
under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
``(h) Maps.--The maps referred to in this section shall be
maintained on file in the Office of the Chief, United States
Forest Service, and in the Office of the Secretary of the
Interior, Washington, D.C. The acreage cited in this section
is approximate, and if there is any discrepancy between cited
acreage and the land depicted on the specified maps, the maps
shall control. The maps do not constitute an attempt by the
United States to convey State or private land.''
______
By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Thompson, Mr.
Lott, Mr. Allard, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr.
Cochran, Mr. Burns, Mr. McCain, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. DeWine, Mr.
Bond, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Helms, and Mr.
Nickles):
S. 427. A bill to improve congressional deliberation on proposed
Federal private sector mandates, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs,
jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1997, with instructions
that if one Committee reports, the other Committee have thirty days to
report or be discharged.
the mandates information act of 1999
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with 14 of my Colleagues,
including the Chairmen of the Senate Small Business, Commerce,
Government Affairs and Budget Committees, as well as the Majority
Leader, in introducing vital legislation in protecting our nation's
businesses from ill-thought government mandates, The Mandates
Information Act of 1999. This bill in my view furthers the cause of
careful deliberation in this, the greatest deliberative body in the
world. It will force Members of Congress to carefully consider all
aspects of potential legislation containing mandates affecting
consumers, workers, and small businesses.
We have been working towards final passage of this bill for quite
some time, Mr. President, as we introduced very similar legislation in
the last Congress. I wish to thank Chairmen Thompson and Domenici for
their tireless leadership in shepherding this through their two
Committees last Congress. I am only sorry we did not have sufficient
time to bring it to the floor before adjournment. With their support
and leadership in this Congress, I believe we can bring it to the floor
for quick consideration and move to Conference with the House.
And too it is the House that I also wish to extend my thanks and
respect. Under the careful leadership of Representatives Portman and
Condit, and the very helpful support of the Speaker, the House version
of the Mandates Information Act, H.R. 350, easily passed the House on
Wednesday with a broad, bipartisan majority of 274 to 194. Their
conscientious sponsorship of the bill allowed it to quickly pass
through Committee, and to avoid being watered down by unneeded
amendments. I offer my thanks and respect for their efforts.
Mr. President, this is not a new idea, but one that builds upon the
important work of the 104th Congress when we passed the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. That legislation required the
Congressional Budget Office to make two key estimates with respect to
any bill reported out of committee: First, whether the bill contains
intergovernmental mandates with an annual cost of $50 million or more;
and, second, whether the bill contains private sector mandates with an
annual cost of $100 million or more. The 1995 act also established a
point of order against bills meeting the $50 million cost threshold for
intergovernmental mandates. Although the point of order can be waived
by a simple majority vote, it encourages Congress to think carefully
before imposing new intergovernmental mandates.
The 1995 act did not apply its point of order to private sector
mandates. This was understandable, given the bill's focus on
intergovernmental mandates. But States and localities are not alone in
being affected by Federal mandates. Consumers, workers, and small
businesses also are affected when the Federal Government passes along
the costs of its policies. This is why the Mandates Information Act of
1997 will apply a point of order to bills meeting the $100 million cost
threshold for private sector mandates, while also directing the CBO to
prepare a ``Consumer, Worker, and Small Business Impact Statement'' for
any bill reported out of committee.
These reforms are necessary in my view, Mr. President, because the
1995 Act, while effective in its chosen sphere of intergovernmental
mandates, does not contain the necessary mechanisms to force Congress
to think seriously about the wisdom of proposed mandates on the private
sector. This leaves our private sector faced with the same dilemma once
faced by our States and localities: Congress does not give full
consideration to the costs its mandates impose. Focusing almost
exclusively on the benefits of unfunded mandates, Congress pays little
heed to, and sometimes seems unaware of, the burden that unfunded
mandates impose on the very groups they are supposed to help.
Unfunded mandate costs by definition do not show up on Congress'
balance ledger. But, as President Clinton's Deputy Treasury Secretary
Lawrence Summers has written, ``[t]here is no sense in which benefits
become `free' just because the government mandates'' them. Congress has
merely passed the costs on to someone else.
And that ``someone'' is the American people. As economists from
Princeton's Alan Krueger to John Holohan, Colin Winterbottom, and
Sheila Zedlewski of the Urban Institute agree, the costs of unfunded
mandates on the private sector are primarily borne by three groups:
consumers, workers, and small businesses.
What forms do these costs take? For consumers, mandate costs take the
form of higher prices for goods and services, as unfunded mandates
drive up the cost of labor.
For workers, the costs of unfunded mandates often take the form of
significantly lower wages. According to the Heritage Foundation, a
range of independent studies indicates that some 88 percent of the cost
of private sector mandates are shifted to workers in the form of lower
wages.
And mandates can cause workers to lose their jobs altogether. Faced
with uncontrollable increases in employee costs, our job creators too
often find that they can no longer afford to retain their full
complement of workers. The Clinton health care mandate, for example,
would have resulted in a net loss of between 200,000-500,000 jobs,
according to a study conducted by Professor Krueger.
Small businesses and their potential employees also suffer. Mandates
typically apply only to businesses with at least a certain number of
employees. As a result, small businesses have a powerful incentive not
to hire enough new workers to reach the mandate threshold. As the Wall
Street Journal recently noted, ``The point at which a new [mandate]
kicks in * * * is the point at which the [Chief Financial Officer] asks
`Why grow?' ''
That question is asked by small businesses all over the country, but
let me cite one example from my State. Hasselbring/Clark is an office
equipment supplier in Lansing, MI. Noelle Clark is the firm's treasurer
and secretary. Mindful of the raft of mandates whose threshold is 50
employees, Ms. Clark reports that lately ``we have hired a few temps to
stay under 49.'' Thus, unfunded mandates not only eliminate jobs, but
also prevent jobs from being created.
Much as Members of Congress may wish it were not so, mandates have a
very real cost. This does not mean that all mandates are bad. But it
does mean that Congress should think very carefully about the wisdom of
a proposed mandate before imposing it.
Such careful thinking, Mr. President, is the goal of the Mandates
Information Act of 1999. Just as the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 protects State and local governments from hasty decisionmaking
with respect to proposed intergovernmental mandates,
[[Page S1646]]
the Mandates Information Act would protect consumers, workers, and
small businesses from hasty decisionmaking with respect to proposed
private sector mandates. It would do so, in essence, by extending the
reforms of the 1995 act to private sector mandates.
The bill I introduce today would build on the 1995 act's reforms in
two ways. First, to give Congress more complete information about the
impact of proposed mandates on the private sector, my bill directs CBO
to prepare a ``Consumer, Worker, and Small Business Impact Statement''
for any bill reported out of Committee. This statement would include
analyses of the bill's private sector mandates' effects on the
following: First, consumer prices and [the] actual supply of goods and
services in consumer markets; second, worker wages, worker benefits,
and employment opportunities; and third, the hiring practices,
expansion, and profitability of businesses with 100 or fewer employees.
But providing Congress with more complete information about the
impact of proposed private sector mandates will not guarantee that it
pays any attention to it. This we know from experience. In 1981,
Congress enacted the State and Local Government Cost Estimate Act,
sponsored by Senator Sasser. Pursuant to that act, CBO provided
Congress with estimates of the cost of intergovernmental mandates in
bills reported out of committee. But Congress routinely ignored this
information. It did so because the 1981 act had no enforcement
mechanism to force Congress to consider the CBO estimates. As Senator
Sasser himself explained in introducing a follow-up bill in 1993,
``[t]he problem [with the 1981 act], it has become clear, is that this
yellow caution light has no red light to back it up.''
To supply that ``red light,'' Senator Sasser's Mandate Funding Act of
1993 contained a point of order. Of course, the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 likewise contained a point of order, which is why it
succeeded where Senator Sasser's 1981 act had failed.
The Mandates Information Act of 1999 will provide this red light for
proposed private sector mandates. It contains a point of order against
any bill whose direct private sector mandates exceed the $100 million
threshold set by the 1995 act. Like the 1995 act's point of order
against intergovernmental mandates, the 1997 bill's point of order can
be waived by a simple majority of Members. Thus it will not stop
Congress from passing bills it wants to pass. It is here, Mr.
President, that I wish to thank Chairman Thompson and Domenici for the
excellent revisions of the mandates language offered during the
Government Affairs mark-up of the Mandates Information Act of 1997. We
have incorporated those changes in this bill and believe they greatly
strengthen the legislation, including making it very clear that the
point of order only applies to direct mandates upon the private sector
that exceed $100 million.
It is that point of order which will serve the vital purpose to
ensure Congress does not ignore the information contained in the
Consumer, Worker, and Small Business Impact Statement. It will do so by
allowing any Member to focus the attention of the entire House or
Senate on the impact statement for a particular bill.
The Mandates Information Act of 1999 will provide Congress with more
complete information about proposed mandates' effects on consumers,
workers, and small businesses. It will also ensure that Congress
actually considers this information before reaching a judgment about
whether to impose a new mandate. The result, Mr. President, will be
focused, high-quality deliberation on the wisdom of private sector
mandates.
Because of the success of the 1995 act, Congress is now much more
careful to consider the interests of State and local governments in
making decisions about unfunded mandates. But Congress must be just as
careful to consider the interests of consumers, workers, and small
businesses in making such decisions. This bill will ensure that care,
helping produce better legislation; legislation that imposes a lighter
burden on working Americans.
Mr. President, I will include in the Record the following sample of
letters from small business groups supporting the bill along with a
list of groups that have expressed their support for it.
Mr. President, the support for this legislation is broad and deep. It
is needed to protect our small businesses against mandates which have
not been fully analyzed and which harm these businesses in ways that
Congress may never have intended. But, Mr. President, I believe they
can best argue for the need for this bill.
Therefore, I call on my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this
important legislation, and to move it through Committee and to the
floor as quickly as possible. It is necessary, it is wise, and it is
fair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the
legislation as well as a section-by-section summary of the bill, a list
of groups in support of the bill, letters of support from the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, the Small Business Survival Committee and the
Competitive Enterprise Institute also be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 427
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Mandates Information Act of
1999''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) before acting on proposed private sector mandates,
Congress should carefully consider their effects on
consumers, workers, and small businesses;
(2) Congress has often acted without adequate information
concerning the costs of private sector mandates, instead
focusing only on their benefits;
(3) the costs of private sector mandates are often borne in
part by consumers, in the form of higher prices and reduced
availability of goods and services;
(4) the costs of private sector mandates are often borne in
part by workers, in the form of lower wages, reduced
benefits, and fewer job opportunities; and
(5) the costs of private sector mandates are often borne in
part by small businesses, in the form of hiring disincentives
and stunted growth.
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to improve the quality of Congress's deliberation with
respect to proposed mandates on the private sector, by--
(A) providing Congress with more complete information about
the effects of such mandates; and
(B) ensuring that Congress acts on such mandates only after
focused deliberation on their effects; and
(2) to enhance the ability of Congress to distinguish
between private sector mandates that harm consumers, workers,
and small businesses, and mandates that help those groups.
SEC. 4. FEDERAL PRIVATE SECTOR MANDATES.
(a) In General.--
(1) Estimates.--Section 424(b) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658c(b)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(4) Estimate of indirect impacts.--
``(A) In general.--In preparing estimates under paragraph
(1), the Director shall also estimate, if feasible, the
impact (including any disproportionate impact in particular
regions or industries) on consumers, workers, and small
businesses, of the Federal private sector mandates in the
bill or joint resolution, including--
``(i) an analysis of the effect of the Federal private
sector mandates in the bill or joint resolution on consumer
prices and on the actual supply of goods and services in
consumer markets;
``(ii) an analysis of the effect of the Federal private
sector mandates in the bill or joint resolution on worker
wages, worker benefits, and employment opportunities; and
``(iii) an analysis of the effect of the Federal private
sector mandates in the bill or joint resolution on the hiring
practices, expansion, and profitability of businesses with
100 or fewer employees.
``(B) Estimate not considered in determination.--The
estimate prepared under this paragraph shall not be
considered in determining whether the direct costs of all
Federal private sector mandates in the bill or joint
resolution will exceed the threshold specified in paragraph
(1).''.
(2) Point of order.--Section 424(b)(3) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658c(b)(3)) is amended by adding
after the period ``If such determination is made by the
Director, a point of order under this part shall lie only
under section 425(a)(1) and as if the requirement of section
425(a)(1) had not been met.''.
(3) Threshold amounts.--Section 425(a)(2) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658d(a)(2)) is
amended by striking ``Federal intergovernmental mandates by
an amount that causes the thresholds specified in section
424(a)(1)'' and inserting ``Federal mandates by an amount
that causes the thresholds specified in section 424 (a)(1) or
(b)(1)''.
[[Page S1647]]
(4) Application relating to appropriations committees.--
Section 425(c)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
(2 U.S.C. 658d(c)(1)(B)) is amended--
(A) in clause (i) by striking ``intergovernmental'';
(B) in clause (ii) by striking ``intergovernmental'';
(C) in clause (iii) by striking ``intergovernmental''; and
(D) in clause (iv) by striking ``intergovernmental''.
(5) Application relating to congressional budget office.--
Section 427 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C.
658f) is amended by striking ``intergovernmental''.
(b) Exercise of Rulemaking Powers.--This section is enacted
by Congress--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate
and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such
they shall be considered as part of the rules of such House,
respectively, and such rules shall supersede other rules only
to the extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
either House to change such rules (so far as relating to such
House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same
extent as in the case of any other rule of each House.
____
Section-by-Section Analysis
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE
This Act may be cited as the ``Mandates Information Act of
1999.''
SEC. 2. FINDINGS
Finds that Congress should consider the effects of proposed
mandates on consumers, workers and small businesses, and that
Congress has often acted on mandates while knowing their
benefits but not their costs.
SEC. 3. PURPOSES
The purposes of this Act are:
To improve the quality of Congress' deliberation on
proposed private sector mandates by providing Congress with
more complete information;
Ensuring that Congress acts on such mandates only after
focused deliberation on their effects; and
To enhance the ability of Congress to distinguish between
helpful and harmful private sector mandates.
SEC. 4. FEDERAL PRIVATE SECTOR MANDATES
(a) In General--
(1) Estimates--Directs the Congressional Budget Office, if
feasible, to estimate the impact of private sector mandates
on consumers, workers, and small businesses, including the
impact on--
Consumer prices and the supply of goods and services;
Worker wages, benefits, and employment opportunities; and
The hiring practices, expansion and profitability of
businesses with 100 or fewer employees.
The estimate prepared under this paragraph shall not be
considered in determining whether the direct costs of all
Federal private sector mandates in the bill or joint
resolution exceed the $100 million threshold.
(2) Point of Order--Provides that if the Congressional
Budget Office is unable to estimate the cost of private
sector mandates in a bill or joint resolution, a point of
order will still lie against consideration of that bill or
joint resolution.
(3) Threshold Amounts--Exempts funded private sector
mandates from a point of order.
(4) Application to Appropriations--Extends the point of
order only to appropriations bills only if a legislative
provision that includes a Federal private sector mandate is:
Contained in an appropriations bill or conference report;
or
Contained in an amendment to an appropriations bill; or
Amendments in disagreement between the two Houses to an
appropriations bill.
(5) Amendments--Requires the Congressional Budget Office,
when practicable, to estimate the direct costs of a Federal
private sector mandate contained in an amendment at the
request of any Senator.
(b) Exercise of Rulemaking Powers--States that the Act is
enacted as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate
and House of Representatives under their constitutional right
to change such rules at any time.
____
Organizations Supporting the Mandates Information Act of 1999
NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
The United States Chamber of Commerce, National Federation
of Independent Business, National Association for the Self-
Employed, National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors,
National Retail Federation, Small Business Survival
Committee, Associated Builders and Contractors, American Farm
Bureau Federation, National Association of Manufacturers,
National Association of Home Builders, National Restaurant
Association, National Roofing Contractors Association,
Citizens for a Sound Economy, Heritage Foundation,
Competitive Enterprise Institute
MICHIGAN ORGANIZATIONS
Associated Underground Contractors, Inc.; Grand Rapids
Area Chamber of Commerce; Michigan Association of Timbermen;
Michigan Chamber of Commerce; Michigan Farm Bureau Family of
Companies; Michigan NFIB; Michigan Retailers Association;
Michigan Soft Drink Association; Small Business Association
of Michigan.
____
Charmber of Commerce
The United States of America,
Washington, D.C. February 9, 1999.
Hon. Spencer Abraham,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Abraham: As long standing advocates of
mandates relief for the private and public sectors, the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce strongly supports the legislation that
you will be introducing, The Mandates Information Act of
1999.
Recent studies estimate the compliance costs of federal
regulations at more than $700 billion annually and project
substantial future growth even without the enactment of new
legislation. Congressional mandates impose significant costs
on the private sector, particularly small business. These
costs are passed along in the form of higher prices and
taxes, reduced wages, stunted economic growth, and decreased
technological innovation.
The Mandates Information Act builds upon the success of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act by requiring the Congressional
Budget Office (``CBO'') to provide Congress with information
on the potential impacts associated with proposed significant
mandates on the private sector. This legislation promotes
better decision making and greater accountability by
providing Congress with information relating to the costs and
impacts of its mandates before enacting them and passing the
costs on to consumers. It also allows a separate debate and
floor vote.
During the last Congress, H.R. 3534, the Mandates
Information Act, was passed by the U.S. House of
Representatives by a vote of 279-132. Additionally, the
analogous bill in the Senate was marked up and approved by
the Government Affairs Committee. Unfortunately, the 105th
Congress ended before the Senate could vote on the
legislation.
Lawmakers have the responsibility to legislate using the
most complete and accurate information available. The point-
of-order mechanism, coupled with CBO's analysis under the
Mandates Information Act, would help make Congress far more
responsive to the burdens created by ill-considered mandates.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business
federation representing more than three million businesses of
every size, sector, and region, appreciates your effort to
make Congress more accountable to small businesses, workers,
and consumers through the Mandates Information Act.
Sincerely,
Lonnie P. Taylor,
Senior Vice President.
____
Small Business
Survival Committee,
Washington, DC, January 27, 1999.
Hon. Spencer Abraham
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Abraham: Any effort to highlight the burden of
private-sector mandates on small businesses, workers, and
consumers earns the support of the Small Business Survival
Committee's (SBSC's) 50,000 members.
The Mandates Information Act of 1999 is an important piece
of legislation that would provide Congress with the ability
to determine the economic impact of mandates by directing the
Congressional Budget Office to supply Congress with an
analysis of a new mandate's impact on small businesses,
workers, and consumers.
Small businesses bear a disproportionate burden of the
costs of federal regulations. The per employee costs of these
regulations are usually 80% higher for small businesses when
compared to that of large corporations. Ultimately, the costs
his employees hard, through lower wages, reduced benefits,
and fewer job opportunities and consumers are hurt by high
prices and reduced availability of goods and services.
To draw attention to private-sector mandates with annual
costs in excess of $100 million, the Mandates Information Act
of 1999 allows any member to raise a ``point of order'' to
ensure the Members of Congress do not ignore the economic
impact imposed by their mandates on taxpayers. This provision
is an important step in favor of true congressional
accountability.
The Small Business Survival Committee strongly support this
important piece of legislation and looks forward to working
with you to ensure its passage.
Sincerely,
Karen Kerrigan,
President.
____
[From the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Feb. 8, 1999]
So, What Will This Unfunded Mandate Cost Me?
(By Clyde Wayne Crews Jr.)
The $1.77 trillion spending budget President Clinton sent
to Congress February 2 tells just part of the story of the
Federal government's reach in the economy. Regulatory
mandates placed on Americans increase the costs of government
by over a third. Legislation now being debated in the House
of Representatives (H.R. 350) could help better control that
cost.
Some know the problems of mandates more acutely than
others. Back in 1995, governors and other state and local
officials--fed up with the federal government's imposing
exceedingly costly environmental and
[[Page S1648]]
other mandates on them--revolted. To many state and local
officials, every dollar spent on federal priorities, however
beneficial and popular, compromised their ability to achieve
their own budget priorities. Some even felt they could
protect their own local environments without Washington's
intervention, thank you very much.
Happy Governors.--The complaints that Washington too often
ignored the costs of its mandates were heard. The result was
the 104th Congress's Unfunded Mandates Act--the significance
of which garnered it the designation ``S. 1'' in the Senate.
The law required cost disclosure for significant mandates,
and offered an opportunity to demand explicit votes on the
intent to impose those costs.
Unfunded public-sector mandates weren't halted by the
Unfunded Mandates Act, of course. But total rules in the
federal pipeline impacting state and local governments has
dipped 12 percent over the past five years, from 1,317 to
1,161.\1\ The real innovation wasn't rule blockage at all,
but rather increased congressional, rather than agency,
accountability to the public for the impacts of rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\All figures on numbers of regulations in this document
were compiled by CEI from the federal Regulatory Information
Service Center's ``Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations,''
various years' editions, for the forthcoming CEI report ``Ten
Thousand Commandments: A Policymaker's Snapshot of the
Federal Regulatory State,'' 1999 edition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But full congressional accountability and disclosure remain
to be achieved for rules impacting the private sector. For
example, agency rules significantly impacting small
businesses increased 37% over the past five years, from 686
to 937. Yet Congress remains largely free to ignore the
accompanying costs when enacting legislation that will impose
many private sector mandates. And if costs become an issue
down the line with constituents, its easy to blame the
regulatory agencies that write the rules to implement the
legislation.
The Mandates Information Act (H.R. 350) vs. Those Other
Unfunded Mandates.--One remedy, on which House floor debate
will resume February 10, is the bipartisan Mandates
Information Act of 1999 (H.R. 350), sponsored by Reps. Gary
Condit (D-CA), Rob Portman (R-OH), Jim Moran (D-VA) and Tom
Davis (R-VA). Virtually identical to a version that passed
the 105th Congress on a 279-132 vote, the bill would extend
certain provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Act to mandates
on the private sector. H.R. 350 would establish a point of
order against any legislation that would impose costs over
$100 million annually, such as mandates impacting wages,
consumer prices or small businesses. If raised, the point of
order would halt further floor action unless members waive it
by a simple majority vote. In other words, should any member
object to the imposition of costs on the public, Congress
must then explicitly vote on its intent to consider the bill
despite its costs--and indirectly vote on its belief that
benefits outweigh costs. This approach doesn't necessarily
stop any mandate, but it would increase accountability.
A Step Toward Ending Hidden Taxes?--Legislators partial to
continuing to shield mandate costs from scrutiny and wiggling
out of responsibility, do so at their peril. Off-budget
mandates now cost as much as $700 billion annually. That's an
amount about 40 percent the size of the entire federal
budget, greater even than pretax corporate profits ($640
billion in 1996) and almost as large as the combined GNPs of
Canada and Mexico ($542 billion and $237 billion in 1995).
The Mandates Information Act would help place
responsibility for costly lawmaking squarely back where it
belongs--with Congress. Nonetheless, H.R. 350 has raised the
ire of some who say the measure will make it difficult to
promulgate regulation. What they do not fathom is that it is
not supposed to be easy to impulsively impose what amount to
massive hidden taxes. The opponents' alarm at the point of
order's ``gagging'' debate is quite misguided: If the simple
majority vote to approve worthy, presumably chock-full-of-
benefits legislation is there in the first place, then the
simple majority to waive the point of order should be there,
too. Thus, opponents of H.R. 350's longoverdue focus on
costs, who cry ``What about benefits?'' need to ask
themselves that question. Voters aren't stupid, and they will
support costly legislation if persuaded those costs are
justified, and they will punish those whom they believe stall
needed legislation.
Too Easy To Scapegoat Agencies.--Perhaps the real fear of
the Mandates Information Act's opponents is the fact that a
separate vote to explicitly consider costs weakens political
cover. Today, representatives can deny responsibility for
regulatory costs when speaking before their small business
constituents back home: ``Uh . . . Your hardship is the
agencies' fault! They're out of control!'' That little dodge
would stop.
Congress Must Answer for All Costs.--Those who never met a
regulation they didn't like, those who always think more
rules make sense in the abstract, deserve occasionally to be
awakened from their perpetual Sim-City planner mode, just
long enough to consider whether a rule really makes sense
here on Earth. If even this meager reform is rejected,
Congress might just as well take a roll-call vote on a
resolution stipulating that: ``The public has no business
knowing the costs of the regulations that we impose upon
them.'' That way voters will have it made plain to them
exactly where they stand in the eyes of those they elected.
The innovation and legacy of the Mandates Information Act
is not that it will stop a lot of regulations. It won't. The
Mandates Information Act's lasting contribution will be its
unique step toward full disclosure, its potential to make
Congress more answerable for all the costs of government.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today I rise to support the Mandates
Information Act of 1999. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of
this legislation, which will make Congress more accountable for the
laws it passes. I want to applaud my good friend from Michigan, Spence
Abraham, for his hard work and leadership on this effort. He has always
championed greater accountability and efficiency in our Government.
This legislation is based on a simple premise--that Congress should
think carefully and be accountable for passing mandates that impose
significant costs on people and limit their freedom. In 1995, we passed
the Unfunded Mandates Act to make Congress think twice before imposing
new unfunded mandates on state and local government. But Congress also
should be concerned about the private sector, especially consumers,
workers and small businesses.
This legislation builds on the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in two
ways. First, it will provide Congress with more complete information
about the costs of proposed Congressional mandates on the private
sector. The Congressional Budget Office would prepare a ``Consumer,
Worker, and Small Business Impact Statement'' for new private sector
mandates in bills reported out of Committee. The Statement would
analyze the impacts of Congressional mandates on: (1) consumer prices
and the supply of goods and services in the market; (2) worker wages,
benefits, and employment opportunities; and (3) the hiring practices,
expansion, and profitability of businesses with 100 or fewer employees.
Second, to ensure that Congress pays attention to the information,
this legislation would establish a point of order, waivable by a simple
majority, against legislation containing direct private sector unfunded
mandates over the $100 million threshold established by the Unfunded
Mandates Act. This bill does not prohibit legislative mandates; it
simply requires Congress to think carefully before deciding whether or
not to impose them.
Mr. President, I believe that the public has a right to open,
accountable, and efficient government. If Congress or the President
wants to take credit for the benefits of a new program, we also should
answer for its costs. We can't shrug off our responsibilities just
because the economy is good now and we can point to budget surpluses.
There has been a large growth in regulatory mandates that simply are
not accounted for in budget figures. Federal regulation costs about
$700 billion per year by some estimates. That is about 40 percent of
the size of the entire Federal budget. And regulation begins when
Congress passes legislation that delegates its lawmaking authority to
the Federal agencies.
The truth is that there is no free lunch. While we can see the costs
of tax-and-spend programs in the taxes we pay, the costs of regulatory
mandates are just as real. We all pay for regulatory mandates through
hidden taxes in the form of higher prices, lower productivity and
wages, and diminished economic growth and job opportunities.
In particular, the costs of private sector mandates can hit hard on
consumers, workers and small businesses. Consumers pay for mandates
through higher prices for goods and services. Workers pay through lower
wages. And small businesses pay through lower profitability and growth,
which in turn means less job opportunities for workers. A 1995 Small
Business Administration study found that an average business with less
than 20 employees spends about $5,500 per employee to comply with
Federal regulations, while large firms with over 500 employees spend
about $3,000 per employee. While regulatory mandates affect everyone,
small businesses have a particularly tough time shouldering them.
I have always said that agencies need to regulate smarter. But before
we even reach that step, Congress needs to legislate smarter. Last
year, this legislation passed the House, and in the
[[Page S1649]]
Senate we reported it out of the Governmental Affairs Committee. On
Wednesday, the House passed this legislation again by an overwhelming
vote. It is my hope that we can enact it into law this year. The
Mandates Information Act will help place responsibility for costly laws
at their source--Congress. It's long overdue.
______
By Mr. GORTON:
S. 428. A bill to amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to
ensure that producers of all classes of soft white wheat (including
club wheat) are permitted to repay marketing assistance loans, or
receive loan deficiency payments, for the wheat at the same rate; to
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
loan deficiency payment for club wheat
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that
will restore payment equity to Pacific Northwest producers of club
wheat.
Last year, during the middle of the 1998 harvest season, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture made a rule change regarding the Loan
Deficiency Payment (LDP) club wheat, a member of the soft white wheat
subclass. While I applaud USDA for its efforts in providing equal
payments for club wheat and soft white wheat, by making the policy
change in the middle of the production year, many club wheat producers
had already contracted with the lower payment.
In order to address the inequity between the 1998 club wheat LDP
contracts, my colleagues and I requested that USDA make the policy
retroactive. USDA claimed it does not have the authority to grant
retroactivity, and as a result, I have introduced this legislation to
provide the agency retroactive authority.
At a time when commodity prices are at an all time low, it is my hope
that the LDP inequity for club wheat will be resolved by passage of
this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the legislation be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 428
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REPAYMENT RATE FOR MARKETING ASSISTANCE LOANS FOR
WHEAT; LOAN PAYMENT RATE FOR LOAN DEFICIENCY
PAYMENTS FOR WHEAT.
(a) In General.--Section 134(a)(2) of the Agricultural
Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7234(a)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) in the case of soft white wheat, be uniform for all
classes of the wheat, including club wheat.''.
(b) Application.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply beginning with the 1997 crop of wheat.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Grams,
Mr. Daschle, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Levin):
S. 429. A bill to designate the legal public holiday of
``Washington's Birthday'' as ``Presidents' Day'' in honor of George
Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt and in recognition
of the importance of the institution of the Presidency and the
contributions that Presidents have made to the development of our
Nation and the principles of freedom and democracy; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
THE REDESIGNATION OF WASHINGTON'S BIRTHDAY
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity, along
with my distinguished colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Cleland, Grams,
Daschle, DeWine, Lautenberg, and Levin, to reintroduce legislation
recognizing the importance of the institution of the Presidency. My
legislation would redesignate ``Washington's Birthday'' as
``Presidents' Day,'' honoring George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and
Franklin Roosevelt. In taking this step, we would honor three of our
nation's most important leaders, Presidents who led our nation through
our greatest challenges and crises. In so doing, we would be
celebrating the contributions that these and other great Presidents
have made to the development of freedom and democracy in our great
nation.
Our democracy depends upon the participation of a well-informed
electorate--citizens who take their civic responsibilities seriously.
However, many Americans appear to have lost confidence in our political
system. In the last presidential election, less than half of eligible
voters--49 percent--voted. In the 1998 midterm elections, only 36
percent of the voting populace cast their vote to determine the future
of our nation. This was the lowest voter turnout since 1942, over 50
years ago. The turnout rate among younger voters is even lower.
Tests administered by the National Assessment of Educational Progress
found that almost 60 percent of high school seniors lacked even a basic
understanding of American history. These findings indicate that too
many Americans feel a sense of alienation from the political process
and do not believe that government and political involvement are
relevant to their lives.
In this time of cynicism about American politics, we must restore the
faith and pride of our citizens in our government. Passage of this
legislation will recognize three of our nation's greatest leaders and
the enduring strength of the Office of the Presidency. It will remind
all of us--but particularly young people who are our nation's future
leaders--of the important contributions made by Presidents of the
United States and the principles on which our nation was founded.
____________________